SynthesisPloS one2016
Screening Coverage Needed to Reduce Mortality from Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical practice guidelines for molecular tumor marker, 2nd edition review part 2.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Guideline
- Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Sensitive detection of HSP70 using a current-amplified biosensor based on antibody-loaded PS-AuNPs@Cys/Au modified ITO chip.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- The knowledge and attitude towards prostate cancer and screening practices among males in Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards prostate cancer screening amongst men living in the southern Italian peninsula: the Prevention and Research in Oncology (PRO) non-profit Foundation experience.World journal of urology · 2017Article
- Is Prostate Biopsy Recommended in Turkish Men with a Prostate-Specific Antigen Level between 2.5 and 4 ng/mL?Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimentalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionScreening for prostate cancer remains controversial because of conflicting results from the two major trials: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).
objectiveMeta-analyze and meta-regress the available PSA screening trials.
methodsWe performed a living systematic review and meta-regression of the reduction in prostate cancer mortality as a function of the duration of screening provided in each trial. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Registry, and references lists from previous meta-analyses to identify randomized trials of PSA screening. We followed PRISMA guidelines and qualified strength of evidence with a GRADE Profile.
resultsWe found 6 trials, but excluded one that also screened with trans-rectal ultrasound. We considered each ERSPC center as a separate trial. When pooling together all 11 trials we found no significant benefit from screening; however, the heterogeneity was 28.2% (95% CI: 0% to 65%). Heterogeneity was explained by variations in the duration of serial screening (I2 0%; 95% CI: 0% to 52%). When we analyzed the subgroup of trials that added more than 3 years of screening (range 3.2 to 3.8) we found a significant benefit for screening with risk ratio 0.78 (95% CI 0.65-0.94; I2 = 0%; 95% CI: 0% to 69%) and a number needed to invite for screening of 1000. We downgraded the quality of evidence to moderate due to our retrospective identification of subgroups and limited data on control group screening.
conclusionsAdequate duration of screening reduces mortality from prostate cancer. The benefit, while small, compares favorably with screening for other cancers. Our projections are limited by the moderate quality of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.